Biotech Values

[iwfal]

Moreover, doubling the amount of active toxin administered to a fixed region of the face would be expected to produce a higher rate of ptosis, which EOLS’ dataset did not show—a red flag that something is amiss.

Comment: it wouldn’t surprise me AT ALL that if a 4x concentration provided longer duration without higher AE (eg
Ptosis). Note that I expect this kind of dilution/injection-pattern change and its impact on (separately) efficacy and AE to vary immensely for different treatment locales (glabellar vs frontalis vs cervical dystonia vs spastic limb). And I virtually guarantee EOLS mgt is much more capable of dealing flexibly with this difficult location-specific-difference. (Foley seems incapable of flexibility.)

it’s pretty obvious to me that double-dose Jeuveau is a ploy that EOLS engaged not to further its own business, but rather to create confusion in the marketplace about Daxxify and thereby impede Daxxify’s commercial uptake. On this score alone, EOLS may have been successful in accomplishing what it hoped to accomplish, but the impeding of Daxxify’s uptake will be transient. A year from now, nobody will be talking about double-dose Jeuveau.

Agree. Partly. It’s *currently*, without a price cut, a marketing ploy. But wager: 18 months from now EOLS will still be growing at least as fast as RVNC (within 15% of Q/Q percentage) for US neuronmodulators.